ESG fraud exposed: FTX was awarded higher score on “Leadership and Governance” than ExxonMobil

Image: ESG fraud exposed: FTX was awarded higher score on “Leadership and Governance” than ExxonMobil

(Natural News) To illustrate the fraud that is “Environmental, Social, and Governance” investing, also known as ESG, consider the fact that this globalist system of scoring companies based on compliance awarded a higher “Leadership and Governance” score to FTX, a fraudulent cryptocurrency exchange that just collapsed, than to ExxonMobil, the largest investor-owned oil company in the world.

On Twitter, the Wall Street Silver account tweeted an image showing that ExxonMobil received a score of 38 for Leadership and Governance while FTX Trading Ltd., now defunct for fraud, received a score of 50. (Related: The attorneys general from at least 19 states have launched investigations into banks tied to ESG climate cult fraud.)

FTX’s founder and top leader, Sam Bankman-Fried, essentially belongs in prison for defrauding investors and running a crypto Ponzi scheme. For that, he gets a 50. But ExxonMobil’s leadership, which is still running a successful company? They get a reduced score of just 38.

It makes no sense whatsoever, and that is the point of the Wall Street Silver tweet: to show that ESG ratings “are all a fraud” – see the tweet below:

Sam Bankman-Fried’s fraudulent FTX got a higher ESG score on “Leadership & Governance” than Exxon Mobil ?

ESG ratings are all a fraud.

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) November 13, 2022

Public calls for SEC chair Gary Gensler to be questioned before a jury

One of the first people to respond to Wall Street Silver’s tweet about ESG fraud was none other than Elon Musk, the new captain of the Twitter ship. Musk wrote one simple word: Yup.

Another person called for Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair Gary Gensler to be questioned before a jury, seeing as how he met with FTX head Sam Bankman-Fried just months before the company’s implosion.

For 45 minutes, Gensler spoke with Bankman-Fried over Zoom in what some crypto players have dubbed an “unusual meeting.” Prior to that meeting, Gensler had aggressively stated that most digital coins qualify as unregistered securities, the suggestion being they need to be regulated like stocks.


Fast-forward to November and the FTX scandal has created the perfect scapegoat for Big Fed to intervene and grab hold of the crypto space, which is something that many say it has long lusted after in order to maintain centralized control over crypto trading.

“While exchanges such as Coinbase, Binance, and Bankman-Fried’s FTX process crypto trades for customers, they operate in a regulatory gray area without explicit SEC approval, thus opening management to possible sanctions,” reported Fox Business.

Even some members of Congress want to know why and how Gensler managed to overlook the impending FTX debacle in the months leading up to its collapse despite close involvement with Bankman-Fried. Gensler did formerly work for Goldman Sachs, so perhaps that gives us a hint as to who this guy really works for.

“At issue: A meeting between Bankman-Fried and Gensler where they discussed an idea for a new SEC-approved crypto trading platform,” Fox further reported.

“If approved, the former FTX chief would have received a jump-start on the competition with a trading platform explicitly meeting the SEC standards, people with direct knowledge of the matter told Fox Business.”

We also now know that FTX was a corporate “partner” of the World Economic Forum (WEF), one of the premier globalist groups steering the world order. FTX embodied the very tenets proposed by the WEF for an ideal new world, hence its high ESG scores.

“What do you think the odds are that sometime in the next couple of years it will be revealed that ESG rating agencies are: (1) Insider trading based on the subjective scores they give companies (2) Taking bribes (3) Infiltrated by entry-ist activists?” asked another person on Twitter.

More related news about the fraud of ESG can be found at

Sources for this article include:

Experts question long-term effects of breast mutilation surgery on quality of life of transgender youth

Image: Experts question long-term effects of breast mutilation surgery on quality of life of transgender youth

(Natural News) A recent study claimed that young girls who underwent breast amputations or mastectomies while transitioning into males have improved their quality of life. But experts strongly criticized the research, calling the follow-up period used in the study as not reliable.

Conducted by researchers from Northwestern Medicine and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the study involved two groups of patients aged 13 to 24, where one group had their healthy breasts amputated as a procedure for gender-affirming care. The other group did not go through with the mutilation.

The team reported that the group that had undergone breast amputation suffered from less chest dysphoria than the control group that did not. They got this feedback three months after the surgeries. “Top surgery is associated with improved chest dysphoria, gender incongruence and body image satisfaction in this age group,” the study concluded.

However, gender medicine experts questioned the research because three months is too short to assess the real effects of this radical procedure in healthy children and young adults.

“I don’t think it should shape clinical care because three months after an operation, people can easily feel happy because complications haven’t happened yet,” Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist and founder of Genspect, told Fox News.

“What we need to know is how they feel after a year, how they feel after five years, and how they feel after 10 years. Then you’ve got something statistically significant, and you’ve got some serious data that you can actually shape your clinical care around,” she added. “The affirmative model is only 10 years old, so we don’t have any long-term data. We don’t know what the impact of a mastectomy is on a 14-year-old. We don’t know what they’re like when they’re 24 because there isn’t any data to show us.”


Teen detransitioner regrets double mastectomy, sues doctors

Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old former female-to-male (FTM) detransitioner, said she regretted having her breasts amputated a year after undergoing double mastectomy. She is now suing her gender-affirming doctors for medical malpractice. (Related: Detransitioner Chloe Cole to sue doctors who forced her to undergo “gender-affirming” procedures.)

According to her intent to sue notice, Cole underwent harmful transgender treatment between the ages of 13 and 17, which constitutes a breach of the standard of care. She took puberty blockers and off-label cross-sex hormone treatment and went through a double mastectomy when she was just 15.

“I was only a kid. I didn’t really have the mental faculties or the life experience to be able to really understand what I was doing to myself. And they didn’t even give me a full picture of what might happen to me,” Cole told Fox News.

According to Cole, she was given the impression she would be happier by transitioning and becoming her real self. She admitted to being initially happy after having her healthy breasts cut off. However, when she got to the end of the transition process, she discovered it wasn’t the solution she had been promised it would be.

“Not only did I have some comorbid mental health issues, but I also started to develop some over the course of my transition. After two years of testosterone, I was diagnosed with depression and anxiety and I struggled with suicidal ideation,” she said.

But if she had participated in the above-mentioned study, she would have been considered one of the success stories.

“Historically, when people who have had gender-affirming surgeries have been surveyed, they’re very happy and there are very few who regret it. And these are studies generally with adults,” said California-based psychologist Dr. Erica Anderson, who has also transitioned herself.

But her concern is that if young persons do not get all the support that ideally they should have and they rushed through the process, they don’t process these life-altering decisions in a mature and properly assessed way.

Visit for more news related to child mutilation and other “gender-affirming” treaments.

Watch the video below where Cole shared how she underwent the gender-reaffirming surgery and how she regretted it after a year.

This video is from the Liberty Station channel on

More related stories:

Former FTM Chloe Cole denounces gender transition in powerful speech, saying “it almost killed her.”

Biden wants American children to have unlimited access to transgender castration drugs and mutilation surgeries.

U.S. medical establishment pushes genital mutilation, chemical castration on children as U.K. sounds alarm.

For the Associated Press, ‘child mutilation’ is now ‘gender-affirming surgery.’

Sources include:

Dr. Eric Nepute talks with Mike Adams about his fight against MEDICAL TYRANNY and the criminalization of speech about vitamin D

Image: Dr. Eric Nepute talks with Mike Adams about his fight against MEDICAL TYRANNY and the criminalization of speech about vitamin D

(Natural News) Controversial chiropractor Dr. Eric Nepute talked about his ongoing battle against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) medical tyranny during a recent episode of the “Health Ranger Report” with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

Nepute is being sued by the U.S. government for talking about vitamin D, zinc and other things that could save people’s lives during the COVID pandemic. The chiropractor said he merely recommended a 150-year-old homeopathic remedy that people around the world have been using during flu and cold seasons, such as high-dose vitamin D, high-dose zinc and vitamin C. These, he added, are common sense solutions to common problems.

The owner of Nepute Wellness Centers and founder of the Wellness Warrior brand slammed the government, doctors and experts who said there’s nothing that can be done to help people and there’s no solution to improve a person’s health against COVID-19.

Unfortunately for Nepute, his common sense solutions to a common problem like COVID-19 ticked off the federal government, which came after him for supposedly violating a law called the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. (Related: Dr. Eric Nepute facing $500B in FTC fines for promoting VITAMIN D3 and ZINC as COVID-19 treatments)

Nepute facing over $500B civil penalty for telling people to take vitamins

Nepute added that the COVID Consumer Protection Act carries a $40,000 civil penalty for each violation and the federal government accused him of violating it 12,555,000 times, which was worth more that half a trillion dollars, for telling people to take vitamins during the COVID pandemic.


“So, they came after me for over half a trillion dollars in civil penalties for telling people to take vitamins during COVID. And the interesting thing to me about this is even after we’ve brought in some of the world’s leading experts, I stood up against them,” said Nepute. “I said, ‘I’m not going to stop fighting you. This is not wrong. What I did was right.’ And everything that we’ve said from the beginning is correct about COVID, the immune system, vitamin D and zinc.”

Nepute and his attorneys have presented to the federal government several pages of research and data showing vitamin D and zinc are beneficial for the immune system and against COVID.

Adams commented that the government should be thanking Nepute for reducing Medicare costs because the remedies and nutritional advice he gave kept people out of hospitals. Instead, he’d been subjected to repeated attacks.

“The medical boards have gone after doctors across the country erroneously for the past few years because of federal government collusion and pressure,” said Nepute, who successfully defended his license five times in recent years.

Nepute shared that his bank accounts along with his company’s credit card processing had been shut down by the government. He also mentioned that the Associated Press had written horrible hit pieces about him.

But he’s not deterred by the attacks.

“The federal government is extremely concerned and very scared to allow me to go to trial. They are doing everything they can to try to get me to settle so that I won’t go to trial. They don’t want me to have a trial in front of a jury of my peers explaining all of this and much more. I mean what they’ve done and tried to destroy this movement and destroy me is reprehensible,” Nepute said.

Follow for more news about people fighting against medical tyranny.

Watch the video below to know more about Dr. Eric Nepute’s fight against medical tyranny.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on

More related stories:

Real Talk with Dr. Eric Nepute: Vitamin D supplementation is effective in preventing COVID-19 – Brighteon.TV.

Dr. Eric Nepute slams Joe Biden over claim that 98% of Americans may need to get vaccinated before we return to normal – Brighteon.TV.

The resistance begins NOW: Global non-compliance movement launched against medical tyranny.

Jeff and Shady talk about resisting medical tyranny with Dr. Simone Gold – Brighteon.TV

STUDY: Doctors skeptical of vaccine safety face suppression, discrimination across medical field.

Sources include:

Pfizer’s Financial Supernova and the Art of Really Big Lies

  • Pfizer’s annual revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022, thanks to its COVID jab, which doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Paxlovid, an ineffective and dangerous COVID antiviral that causes rebound

  • Pfizer got plenty of free help from the federal government, which bullied and harassed people into getting the shots, and implemented rules that ensure hospitals and pharmacies will only prescribe certain COVID drugs, Paxlovid being one of them

  • The key to getting away with a really big lie is making it so divorced from reality that the listener will assume their own perception is flawed, and then repeating it over and over again. This strategy has been used to great effect over the past three years, resulting in a massive shift from fact-based public health orthodoxy to irrational fantasy-based dogma

  • Centralized top-down health care is far more attractive to Big Pharma investors than patient-centered care. The primary obstacle to the corporatization and monetization of public health has been truth, and this obstacle was finally overcome during the COVID pandemic

  • The Big Lies told during the pandemic work because they veer so sharply from the truth. This break from factual reality is what makes it so difficult to question them, because if you do, you’re now questioning the entire hierarchy of public health

Visit Mercola Market


The manufactured COVID pandemic has been a proverbial golden egg-laying goose for Pfizer. Its annual revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022,1 thanks to its COVID jab, which doesn’t prevent infection or spread, and Paxlovid, an ineffective and dangerous COVID antiviral that causes rebound. It would be comical if it weren’t so egregious.

And, Pfizer’s coffers are more or less guaranteed to continue being filled to the brim as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has now added COVID-19 shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.2

With this action, the CDC has secured Pfizer’s (and Moderna’s) permanent liability shield so that no one can sue them for damages for injuries and deaths occurring as a result of the shots. It also opens the door for states to mandate the jab for school children, which guarantees a continuous revenue stream.

That revenue stream may even exceed previous profits, as Pfizer raised the price on its COVID jab by about 400%,3 from $304 per jab to somewhere between $110 and $130, on the same day ACIP voted to add the shot to the vaccine schedule. That price hike will take effect once the current U.S. purchase program expires.

As reported by Kaiser Health News (KHN),5 “a fortune amassed in the COVID pandemic is now paving the path to pharma nirvana: a weight loss pill likely worth hundreds of billions.” Pfizer is also hoping to develop blockbuster drugs for diabetes, migraines, ulcerative colitis, prostate cancer and sickle cell disease, and is gobbling up smaller drug companies with promising product portfolios.

A blockbuster drug may rake in billions, but that doesn’t mean it’s a blockbuster in the sense that it’s effective, as we’ve seen with Paxlovid and the mRNA COVID shot. Pfizer gets around this in large part by being a “remarkable marketing machine,” to quote Timothy Calkins, a professor of marketing at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.6

Not only is Pfizer spending big bucks on splashy advertising, they also work with contract research firms like ICON, which run medical research trials for drug companies and federal agencies alike, thereby giving the drug companies the inside track on drug approvals.7 8

Pfizer also gets plenty of free help from the federal government which, in the case of COVID, coerced millions with job loss threats into getting the shots, and implemented rules that ensure hospitals and pharmacies will only prescribe certain COVID drugs, Paxlovid being one of them.

In a November 4, 2022, article,9 clinical and public health physician Dr. David Bell discusses the art — and price — of lying, noting that the more divorced a lie is from reality, the more likely it is to succeed, thanks to the quirks of human nature and normal psychology:

“In a former role I had a boss who lied a lot. The lies were pure fantasy, but massive in scope and delivered with sincerity. They were very successful.

This success was based on the reluctance of most people to consider that someone in a position of authority in a humanitarian organization would completely ignore all semblance of reality. People assumed the claims must be true as fabricating information to that extent in those circumstances seemed to defy logic.

The principle of Really Big Lies is based on the lies being so divorced from reality that the listener will assume their own perception must be flawed, rather than doubt the claims of the person telling the lies. Only an insane or ridiculous person would make such outlandish claims, and a credible institution would not employ such a person.

Therefore, given that the institution is apparently credible, the statements must also be credible, and the listener’s prior perception of reality was therefore flawed. Lesser lies, by contrast, are likely to be perceived as sufficiently close to known reality to be demonstrably wrong. Inventing truth can be more effective than bending it.”

I believe this is precisely the strategy employed by Big Pharma, health agencies, government officials and the deep state propaganda arm over the past three years. Their claims have been so far from any semblance of reality, anyone aware of the facts has been left feeling more than a little crazy.

Unfortunately, while most humans have a moral and ethical compass, few end up following it when confronted by psychopaths in authority and the peer pressure to conform. As noted by Bell, good team players almost always end up supporting false narratives, and those who refuse to go along with what are clearly lies tend to be but a tiny minority.

For decades, patient-centered health care has been the norm, and patients not only had the right, but the duty, to participate in the planning and implementation of their care. This was enshrined in the 1978 Declaration of Alma Ata10 — a declaration adopted by the World Health Organization “as the key to achieving an acceptable level of health throughout the world.”

However, as noted by Bell, centralized top-down health care is far more attractive to Big Pharma investors. The primary obstacle to the corporatization and monetization of public health was truth, and this obstacle was finally (and formidably) overcome during the COVID pandemic. Bell explains:11

“COVID-19 proved that even this impediment to progress can be expunged through consistent lying and the vilification of truth-tellers, backed by a well-managed behavioral psychology campaign.

This pandemic response provided a template not only for vastly-increased corporate income, but for job certainty and expansion of opportunity for the army of mostly-Western bureaucrats and health professionals filling the offices, meeting rooms and business-class seats of its implementing organizations. COVID-19 made corporate colonialism respectable again.

Superficially, COVID-19 appears a poor disease choice to facilitate a fundamental societal reset.

Death is heavily concentrated in old age … Severe cases are generally confined to those with life expectancies already shortened by metabolic diseases … Countries that failed to implement measures to restrict and impoverish their people … had COVID-19 outcomes similar to those that opted for lockdowns and other trappings of medical fascism.

Average hospital admissions in the UK and USA declined during the pandemic, not what the public expects when a pathogen wreaks havoc. Lockdowns devastated economies … COVID vaccines have also been unhelpful as high vaccination rates failed to noticeably impact infection and transmission …

Thus, COVID-19 provided a hard bucket of facts to deal with, but this is just the situation in which Really Big Lies can work. These were needed both to fool the public, and to provide a structure within which health professionals could implement the policy.

Largely by playing on fear, divorcing data from context, and disseminating false information widely and incessantly, a whole new belief system has been constructed in public health to replace the evidence-based orthodoxy of former years.

Reality has been replaced with dogma so divorced from any basis in fact that it is easier to go with the propaganda than deal with the dissonance that would otherwise result.”

The new fantasy-based beliefs that health care workers, patients, researchers, academics and public health employees are now forced to embrace include the following, quoted from Bell’s article:12

  • Disease burden should be measured in raw mortality, and not include metrics such as life-years lost. Hence an 85-year-old dying of a respiratory virus is equivalent to a 5-year-old dying of malaria in terms of burden and urgency;

  • Medium and long-term harms due to poverty and reduced healthcare access should not be considered when assessing the value of an intervention. A modelled effect on the target pathogen is the only relevant metric;

  • It is appropriate to misinform the public on age-related risk and relative disease burden and better to instill fear in order to achieve compliance with public-health directives;

  • Growth of viral transmission in a community follows an exponential curve, rather than a steady deceleration (e.g. Gompertz curve) as the proportion of recovered (immune) people accumulate;

  • Banning students from school for a year protects the elderly, while not locking in generational poverty;

  • Cloth and surgical masks stop aerosolized virus transmission, and all meta-analyses of randomized control trials (that show minimal or no effect) should be ignored;

  • Post-infection immunity to respiratory viruses is expected to be poor and short-lived, whilst vaccines to a single viral protein will somehow produce much stronger immunity;

  • Immunity to viruses is best measured by antibody concentrations rather than T-cell response or clinical outcomes;

  • Informed consent for vaccination should not include information on demonstrated risks, as this could promote ‘vaccine hesitancy’;

  • It is appropriate to give a new gene-based pharmaceutical class in pregnancy that crosses the placenta without any pregnancy trial data, toxicology studies, or long-term outcomes data (in anyone);

  • Irrespective of the Convention on the Rights of the Child ‘In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration,’ it is appropriate to inject children with drugs lacking long-term safety data in order to protect the elderly;

  • Pandemics are becoming more frequent and more deadly, despite the historical record, and the progress of modern medicine, indicating quite the opposite.

As Bell correctly points out, these new public health positions are not just slightly incorrect. They’re all “either unethical or clear nonsense, contradicted by prior public health orthodoxy.” Indeed, most are classical Orwellian doublespeak and 180 degrees from the truth.

But it’s the sharp break from factual reality that makes it impossible to question them because, if you do, you’re now questioning “the entire current hierarchy of public health,” Bell says.

To quote Dr. Anthony Fauci, you’re not attacking him when you question his irrational flip-flopping, you’re questioning science itself. If you question any of these fantasy-based beliefs, you’re now a science-denier, and you’re putting your employment and reputation at risk. Unfortunately, those risks are not imaginary.

“The way out of this is simply to refuse to lie, or cover for the lies of others … [The] truth will catch up, one day, with those who don’t … It is far better to leave early and live with dignity.” ~ Dr. David Bell

The punishment for refusing these false narratives is very real and very severe. Many doctors and scientists whose reputations and contributions to public health have been beyond reproach for decades have been stripped of their medical licenses and lost their jobs for speaking out against these COVID fallacies.

So, where do we go from here? How do we end the madness and return to reality-based public health?

“Whilst growing their industry’s finances, public health professionals are degrading themselves and betraying society,” Bell writes.13 “The betrayal, based on incessant lying, is something for which they will inevitably face consequences …

Eventually, even the most dedicated followers will begin to question the sense of putting on a mask at a restaurant door only to remove it 10 steps later, or vaccinating vast populations against a disease to which they are already immune whilst they die of other readily preventable diseases.

The way out of this is simply to refuse to lie, or cover for the lies of others … [The] truth will catch up, one day, with those who don’t … It is far better to leave early and live with dignity.”

If you’re paying attention, you’ve undoubtedly noticed that many drug companies, Pfizer in particular, are in the business of creating their own markets. Pfizer released a COVID jab that neither protects against infection nor prevents spread, thereby necessitating multiple boosters. Its antiviral COVID drug Paxlovid causes rebound, necessitating multiple doses.

Now we find that the COVID jabs are also associated with increased rates of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in children, and like clockwork, Pfizer and Moderna start working on RSV jabs. The CDC also aids by recommending kids get additional COVID shots. Is this a racket or what!?

The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) is now demanding answers from the CDC about the off-season spike in RSV rates,14 which mysteriously arose in the wake of childhood injections against COVID.

Moderna’s pediatric COVID jab trial showed those who got the jab had higher rates of RSV than the placebo group. RSV was also one of the primary serious side effects in Pfizer’s pediatric trial. Now, all of a sudden, we’re seeing out-of-season RSV spikes in children. Coincidence? Make them prove it. In a legal update, ICAN reports:

“The issue is so serious that even the FDA’s vaccine committee, VRBPAC, which normally cheerleads even the most dangerous vaccine, noted the correlation and ‘stressed the importance of continued post-authorization safety surveillance, in particular for … certain respiratory infections (RSV and pneumonia) in the youngest age group …’15

Despite the noted importance of surveilling RSV post-authorization, no one at CDC or FDA seems to be drawing a connection between the increase in RSV and the COVID-19 vaccines being administered to children.

Incredibly, the CDC just issued an ‘Official Health Advisory’16 about the increase RSV and respiratory virus cases and, in it, the CDC recommends all individuals 6 months and up receive an influenza vaccine and a COVID-19 vaccine!

Not surprisingly, the press has missed the mark, too. While there are numerous articles detailing the troubling increase in sick children, none reference COVID-19 vaccination despite the data from the manufacturers’ trials.

To get to the bottom of this, on October 26, 2022, ICAN’s attorneys sent a letter17 to the CDC observing the clinical trial data showing a correlation between increased RSV cases and receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine. ICAN’s letter demanded to know the percentage of children who tested positive for RSV and who had received a COVID-19 vaccine prior to their RSV diagnosis.”

In related news, we also have a November 2022 study18 in Nature Communications, which questions the rationale of current booster campaigns. According to the authors:

“An important aspect of vaccine effectiveness is its impact on pathogen transmissibility, harboring major implications for public health policies. As viral load is a prominent factor affecting infectivity, its laboratory surrogate, qRT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct), can be used to investigate the infectivity-related component of vaccine effectiveness …

By analyzing results of more than 460,000 individuals, we show that while recent vaccination reduces Omicron viral load, its effect wanes rapidly. In contrast, a significantly slower waning rate is demonstrated for recovered COVID-19 individuals.

Thus, while the vaccine is effective in decreasing morbidity and mortality, its relatively small effect on transmissibility of Omicron (as measured here by Ct) and its rapid waning call for reassessment of future booster campaigns.”

Considering the theoretical protection of these shots last for just 70 days (according to this study), are the risks associated with the shots really worth it? So far, several risk-benefit analyses have all come to the conclusion that the risks far outweigh any potential benefit.

Unfortunately, it seems we have to rely on scientists outside the U.S. to do this kind of bench science, as all we seem get from American research institutions are analyses of how to get “anti-vaxxers” to buy the false narrative and roll up their sleeves.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

C-19 Injections: Massive Regulatory and Manufacturing Fraud

By: Tessa Lena

  • Alexandra Latypova is an ex-pharmaceutical industry and biotech executive with a lot of experience in the areas of drug safety and clinical trials

  • Early on, she discovered that, based on the number of reported deaths and adverse events per lot, there was unprecedented variability in the toxicity of the product

  • According to Alexandra, the mRNA shots do not conform to their label specifications, and “in practice, both ‘blank’ and ‘lethal’ vials and anything in between is produced”

  • Having analyzed massive amounts of publicly available data, as well as documents that became available as a result of FOIA requests and other sources, she has found strong evidence of manufacturing and regulatory fraud

Visit Mercola Market


I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Alexandra Latypova, an ex-pharmaceutical industry and biotech executive, who has been investigating and exposing manufacturing and regulatory fraud related to COVID injections.

We talked about the industry standards that were not adhered to during the clinical trials and the manufacturing of those injections, about the vial content quality testing procedures that had not been put in place, about the “hot batches” and their geographical distribution, about signs of fraud at every stage of testing and manufacturing the product, and about the general condition of living in a world run by a mob.

The latter was the lightest part of our conversation — evoking a lot of dark Eastern European humor — since both of us are Soviet expats, and in 2020, neither of us required a whole lot of imagination to embrace the existential possibility of living in a world run by a mob. We had seen it in the past without a disguise — and when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it’s just a duck!

Alexandra grew up in Soviet Ukraine and immigrated to America in the late 1990s. She received her MBA from Dartmouth College and the spent about twenty five years in pharmaceutical industry and biotech (including in the areas of drug safety and clinical trials).

Alexandra has had a very gratifying entrepreneurial career. She has founded a number of successful startups, sold them — all before COVID — and retired, hoping to focus on enjoying her life and especially painting, which she does masterfully.

When 2020 knocked on the door with a whole bag of ugly and weird “new normal” treats, Sasha smelled the rat right away. Initially, she became alarmed by the abnormalities in “COVID response,” including the very conspicuous campaign to prevent effective treatment of COVID.

Compelled to understand what was going on, Alexandra got to work. She looked at VAERS and discovered huge discrepancies between the lots, where some batches had just a few reported severe adverse events, and some had over 1500 (she later learned from FOIA’ed documents that lot sizes were in a relatively similar range, and thus the discrepancies could not be explained by the lot size).

And when it comes to VAERS, let’s not forget the 2010 Harvard Pilgrim study showing that VAERS was severely underreported — NOT overreported — capturing less than 1% of adverse events.

Early on, Alexandra discovered the existence of “hot batches.” She is one of team members behind the famous “How Bad Is My Batch” webpage where people can look up the number of severe adverse events reported to VAERS associated with a COVID injection lot number. Other fearless members of the team are Dr Mike Yeadon, ex-head of Pfizer Respiratory Research, Jessica Rose, statistician, Craig Paardekooper, researcher, and Walter Wagner, lawyer.

The slide below show the unprecedented variability of serious adverse events and deaths in the U.S. per batch. Note the comparison to the variability of the flu vaccine lots.

In the interview, Alexandra also mentioned the uneven distribution of deaths per a hundred thousand doses from batch to batch in the U.S. The coasts did much better than some of the Midwestern states that showed a very high numbers of reported deaths per a hundred thousand doses. The worst state is South Dakota (30+ reported deaths per 100,000 doses).

The areas that did even worse, according to Alexandra, were some of the U.S. territories with high percentage of indigenous population. (The latter data became available after the presentation was created, not reflected in the slide.)

In the interview, Alexandra calls the COVID injections products “garbage soup,” both due to the massive non-compliance of the vial content to the specifications (per multiple independently done tests) — as well as due to their non-compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices. Wait, are the manufacturers trolling us? Are telling us that they do not comply (but we must)?!

There are many theories about what’s behind for such wild inconsistency between batches, from manufacturing defects to deliberate toxicity testing — and anything in-between. In her TrialSiteNews article, Alexandra tackles one important angle of the challenge that so many of us had to “explain” when talking to the friends of a more mainstream persuasion:

“Many of us are familiar with the following conundrum: on one hand, highly credentialed scientists and doctors have written numerous research papers explaining the dangerous mechanisms of action underlying mRNA/DNA “platform” technologies. The papers are meticulously researched and depict, correctly in my opinion, many terrifying consequences of the technology that breaches the innate protective mechanisms of human cells.”

“Furthermore, these theoretical papers are validated by the observed outcomes, such as for example, increases in all-cause mortality in high correlation with increases in rates of vaccination in a given territory, unprecedented increases in the adverse events and deaths recorded by various passive reporting systems, astonishingly high reports of the adverse events and deaths from the pharmas’ own pharmacovigilance systems, and autopsy findings in vaccinated post-mortem showing the mechanisms of mRNA technology damage in histopathologic evaluations.

On the other hand, many who have received the injections report no adverse effects and deem the points above a ‘crazy conspiracy’.”

“The question from the uninjured seems to be – why don’t we see MORE deaths if what you say about mRNA products is true? Setting aside ethical limitations of this question, here is a possible answer why: The mRNA shots do not conform to their label specifications. In practice both “blank” and “lethal” vials and anything in between is produced [emphasis mine].

Like I wrote earlier on my Substack, “remarkably, some analyzed vials were reported to contain left over magnetic beads (magnetic beads are used in production of mRNA). Remember the “crazy” videos of some people developing magnetism in the place of injection? Now we have a new, ‘non-conspiratorial’ explanation for the ‘conspiratorial’ videos! Yay, following the science!”

According to Alexandra, vials of mRNA injections are not routinely tested by the manufacturers for conformity to the label. She notes that “the more they conform to the mRNA specification, the deadlier they seem.”

The only vial-level tests specified, for instance, by Pfizer, in leaked Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls documents, are the vial weight at filling, manual inspection for large visible particles, and some tests related to integrity such as vial capping.

The documents don’t describe no routing vial or dose tests verifying the ingredients. Each Pfizer dose is supposed to contain 30 mcg of mRNA, as stated on the label, but there is no information about any testing done to verify that.

“The ingredient conformity tests described in Pfizer CMC package are based on the bulk product batch testing – an upstream manufacturing process step.

It is a regulatory requirement to retain samples of each batch produced, and these samples of vials should exist and be available for examination. Per contracts with the US Government/DOD, the product is shipped to the DOD who retains the ownership of the vials until the product is injected into people.”

Alexandra notes that those contracts are very detailed and specify manufacturing data to be delivered to the DOD, however, she not find any descriptions of sampling of the vials for purposes of verification of their contents vs the label. “Furthermore, it is expressly forbidden by the international vaccine supply contracts to perform the vial tests for label conformity.”

In the interview, as well as in this article, Alexandra talks about the evidence of collusion between the manufacturers, the global regulatory agencies, and the US Department of Defense.

Having analyzed various public data from CDC’s VAERS database as well as various documents that have been obtained through FOIA releases and other source, she concluded that such collusion “led to the commercial release of the Covid-19 countermeasures that do not comply with the current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP).”

Evidence that Alexandra talks about includes Moderna’s non-clinical study summaries, Pfizer’s Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls documentation, and contracts between pharma and the DOD for supply of the mRNA/DNA products. According to her, “it reveals disregard for established safety rules, regulations, and safety practices throughout the development, manufacture, and distribution of these products.”

As reported by Children’s Health Defense, Alexandra reviewed 700 pages of documents that Moderna submitted to the FDA as part of its application process and obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

And according to her, “out of nearly 700 pages, about 400 pages are irrelevant studies that Moderna repeated multiple times. Moderna also submitted three versions of a single module, she said. And one module contained only narrative summaries of Moderna’s studies, but no actual study results.” Alexandra’s conclusion is that we are missing a large number of results, such as full reports that would support their narrative.

“The FDA ‘obviously did not object’ to any of this, she said. ‘That’s evidence of collusion to me with the manufacturer.’”

Other “abnormalities” that Alexandra highlighted both in the interview and in the Children’s Health Defense article, were Moderna’s clinical trials timeline and the fact that their product has two — not one — Investigational New Drug (IND) number.

Normally, there is one IND application for one product. “In this case, however, there are two IND applications — one belonging to Moderna, and one belonging to the National Institutes of Health, which partnered with Moderna on its COVID-19 vaccine.”

“The Investigational New Drug (IND) application meeting is supposed to occur with the FDA when the company initiates human clinical trials. Moderna and the FDA had a pre-IND meeting on Feb. 19, 2020, and the IND application was formally opened the next day. The global pandemic was declared on March 11, 2020.”

In the words of Alexandra, “Somehow these visionaries could predict the future with such certainty that they opened a clinical trial for the vaccine, for which a pandemic was announced a month later.”

As Alexandra notes in her article titled, “Did Pfizer Perform Adequate Safety Testing for its Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine in Preclinical Studies? Evidence of Scientific and Regulatory Fraud,” “both the manufacturer and the regulators behaved in a highly dishonest manner and conspired to push an entirely novel technology and product on millions of people without carrying out a single well designed safety assessment.”

For example, she points out that a review of clinical studies released by FOIA uncovered that at least 4 different variants of active ingredient were included in the single Investigational New Drug application by Pfizer IND#19736:

  • BNT162a1 — Unmodified mRNA (uRNA; variant RBL063.3)

  • BNT162b1 — Methylpseudouridine-modified mRNA (modRNA; variant RBP020.3)

  • BNT162b2 — Methylpseudouridine-modified RNA (modRNA; variant RBP020.2)

  • BNT162c2 — Self-amplifying unmodified mRNA (saRNA; variant RBS004.2)

Alexandra writes that while the use of multiple versions of a product in the early stages of development is often inevitable, each chemical or biological entity is nevertheless deemed legally distinct for the purpose of product approval.

“Therefore, studies conducted with versions of the product that don’t conform to the exact specification of the final version may serve only as supporting information for the approval of the latter, but they should never be deemed definitive and sufficient tests for claims of safety or efficacy pertaining to the final product.”

She further mentions that in September 2021, the FDA issued a draft guidance entitled “Studying Multiple Versions of a Cellular or Gene Therapy Product in an Early-Phase Clinical Trial,” which states that each version of product requires a separate IND application.

However, stunningly, “a footnote in this guideline exempts ‘vaccines intended to prevent infectious diseases’ from this requirement. No explanation is given as to why this exemption is made, and no conceivable scientific or legal basis exists for this exemption, other than that the FDA had already arbitrarily allowed this unprecedented deviation from the regulatory standard and later needed to cover their tracks.

In fact, arguably this regulatory ‘exception’ does not even apply to Pfizer’s COVID-19 ‘vaccine,’ since the product does not prevent infection or transmission of the disease. Is intent to prevent illness alone a sufficient condition? After all, every new drug is intended to do something like preventing an illness, but only few successfully do so.”

Alexandra’s article is very detailed, and I highly recommend reading it in full. You can also find Alexandra on TrialSiteNews and on her Bitchute channel. To summarize her take on Pfizer, she make the following points:

  • Pfizer’s program did not include a comprehensive end-to-end test of all components of the final approved product (the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine). Instead, the studies included in the document package submitted to the FDA employed several variants and analogues of the product, whose comparability to the actual COVID-19 vaccine was not demonstrated or evaluated.

    Thus, no comprehensive assessment of product safety can be made on the basis of these studies.

  • A key determinant of a drug’s toxicity is its distribution within the body. However, with the mRNA active ingredient of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, this crucial aspect was never studied!

  • Pfizer claimed absence of potential for “vaccine-elicited disease enhancement” based on studies of an animal species that does not get sick from SARS-CoV-2.

  • The CDC, the FDA and Pfizer all lied about “vaccine staying at the injection site;” they knew all along that distribution of the vaccine throughout the body had to be expected.

  • Pfizer skipped major categories of safety testing altogether.

  • Pfizer used dishonest and self-serving interpretation of regulatory guidelines to justify the shortcuts it took in routine safety testing.

  • Both FDA and Pfizer knew about major toxicities associated with gene-therapy medicines in general, and they therefore cannot claim lack of anticipatory knowledge of these risks with the particular gene therapy medicine that is Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. This points to intentional fraud and collusion between Pfizer and the regulators, who conspired to push this untested dangerous product on the market.

Even though it is rather disheartening to know we live in a world that run by a mob, the challenge is centuries old, and remembering it can bring us much needed perspective and balance. The novel and “sudden” part of the challenge is that is happening to us, here and now, in broad daylight. That’s shocking! But throughout history, many of our ancestors had to deal with tyrants, and today, it is our turn to be brave. May our brave ancestors be our inspiration.

I would like to end this story with a short quote from my earlier article titled, “Is Our World Run Like a Mafia? So What Do We Do?:”

“Good news: As the mafia bosses do their predatory thing, something mysterious is happening the hearts of those of us who insist on love. Under pressure, we are forced to remember that we are not theirs.” We are not theirs. It is true.

To find more of Tessa Lena’s work, be sure to check out her bio, Tessa Fights Robots.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

How Omega-3 Might Help Prevent Cytokine Storm

  • Evidence suggests the omega-3 fats EPA and DHA affect biological pathways that may have direct influence in the outcome of COVID-19

  • EPA and DHA have a direct influence in the immunological response to viral infections and can modulate immune response and function

  • Animal-based omega-3 fats, especially DHA, also help prevent thrombosis (a blood clot within a blood vessel) by decreasing platelet aggregation. Hypercoagulation is another complication of severe COVID-19 infection that can have lethal consequences

  • Omega-3 also lowers your risk of lung dysfunction, protects against lung damage and secondary bacterial infections, and improves mitochondrial function

  • Research shows that by lowering triglycerides, the risk of developing a cytokine storm is diminished. Omega-3 supplementation is known to lower triglycerides, but krill oil does so more effectively than fish oil

Visit Mercola Market


By now, you’re probably aware that one of the lethal effects of COVID-19 is the virus’ ability to trigger a cytokine storm. It makes sense then that many health practitioners are looking at ways to strengthen and improve immune function. The good news is there are several strategies that appear very helpful in this respect.

Supplements and strategies that have been identified as capable of modulating immune responses and suppressing cytokine storm include but are not limited to:

  • Vitamin D optimization

  • Molecular hydrogen

  • Ketone esters

  • Astaxanthin

  • Melatonin

To this list, we can also add the omega-3 fats docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), long-chained omega-3 fats found in cold-water fatty fish like wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines, anchovies and krill, just to name a few.

According to the opinion paper “The Potential Beneficial Effect of EPA and DHA Supplementation Managing Cytokine Storm in Coronavirus Disease,” published June 19, 2020, in the journal Frontiers in Physiology, EPA and DHA are known to affect biological pathways that “may have direct influence in the outcome of COVID-19”:1

“To date, the molecular events that precipitate a ‘cytokine storm’ or the applicable therapeutic strategies to prevent and manage this process is not elucidated because of the complex nature of this problem.

Recent articles suggest that specific nutrients such as vitamin B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper may play a key role in the management of cytokine storm …

LC-PUFAs (long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids) such as EPA … and DHA … are noteworthy because of their direct influence in the immunological response to viral infections. Evidence suggests that n-3 LC-PUFAs can modulate the immune response and function in many ways.

Among these complex immunomodulatory effects, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and interleukin-1ß (IL-1β) — because of the suspected central regulatory role in the ‘cytokine storm’ — should be highlighted. These cytokines can be affected by dietary EPA and DHA intake (Figure 1).

In addition, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzymes that have anti-inflammatory properties, translatable to human COVID-19 infection were shown to improve tissue levels of DHA and EPA, as well as the downstream anti-inflammatory metabolites of EPA and DHA further underscoring the applicability of DHA and EPA in COVID-19.”

Figure 1: Main pathways for the metabolism of DHA and EPA yielding anti-inflammatory metabolites.

While not mentioned in this Frontiers in Physiology paper, animal-based omega-3 fats, especially DHA, have also been shown to prevent thrombosis (a blood clot within a blood vessel) by decreasing platelet aggregation. As discussed in “COVID-19 Critical Care,” hypercoagulation is another complication of severe COVID-19 infection that can have lethal consequences. Omega-3 also:

  • Lowers your risk of lung dysfunction

  • Protects against lung damage

  • Protects against secondary bacterial infections

  • Improves mitochondrial function

Unfortunately, the authors recommend using “algae- or plant-based sources of EPA and DHA” rather than marine-based sources. I believe this is a mistake. While microalgae2 do contain DHA and EPA and are a viable source for strict vegetarians, as previously discussed in “The Critical Differences Between Omega-3 Fats From Plants and Marine Animals,” most plant-based omega-3s actually do not contain any of the long-chain omega-3 fats, DHA and EPA.

As mentioned, ideal sources of DHA and EPA are marine-based and include cold-water fatty fish like wild-caught Alaskan salmon, sardines and anchovies. If you do not eat these fish on a regular basis, consider taking a krill oil supplement. To learn more about why krill oil is preferable over fish oil, see the infographic below.

As it pertains to the issue of cytokine storm, the authors of the Frontiers in Physiology paper3 point out there are at least three studies showing that by lowering triglycerides, the risk of developing a cytokine storm is diminished, and krill oil, specifically, has been shown to lower triglycerides more effectively than fish oil.4

Along with vitamin D testing, measuring your omega-3 level at least once a year is strongly recommended, as being low in this vital nutrient can spell trouble for your health in more ways than one.

One of the reasons why DHA and EPA are so crucial is because they’re actually key structural elements of your cells; they’re not just simple fuel. If you don’t have enough DHA and EPA, your body’s ability to repair and maintain healthy cell structures is seriously impaired.

The assay to measure omega-3 in your red blood cells was developed by William Harris, Ph.D., in 2004. The omega-3 index is expressed as a percent of all fatty acids in the red blood cell membrane.5 Data from studies Harris performed showed an ideal, healthy range of omega-3 is 8% to 12%.67

GrassrootsHealth co-founder Carole Baggerly commented on the Frontiers in Physiology paper in a personal email to me: “Based on this data, it is highly likely that the higher omega-3 would help prevent the cytokine storm … I would … get up to the index level of 8.1% at least.”

Not only do you want to make sure you are getting sufficient omega-3, but it is also absolutely imperative you limit your omega-6 intake, especially from processed vegetable oils. I discuss this in greater detail in a section below. This is another benefit of the omega-3 index test, as it will show you precisely the levels of these potentially dangerous fats in your cells.

GrassrootsHealth, a nonprofit public health research organization, has several cost-effective testing options available as part of its consumer-sponsored nutrient research projects,8 the aims of which are to establish population-based nutrition recommendations based on science-backed data.

For example, ongoing research by GrassrootsHealth has established the ideal vitamin D range for disease prevention is between 60 and 80 ng/mL. It conducts the same kind of consumer-sponsored research for omega-3 and magnesium. For omega-3, you have four test options:

  • Omega-3 index test kit

  • Vitamin D and Omega-3 test kit

  • Vitamin D, Magnesium and Omega 3 test kit

  • Vitamin D, Magnesium and Omega 3 PLUS Elements test kit — This kit includes measurements of essential minerals (magnesium, selenium, zinc and copper) as well as harmful heavy metals (cadmium, lead and mercury)

Each kit contains instructions for how to collect your blood sample. You then mail in your sample and fill out a quick online health questionnaire through GrassrootsHealth. Your test results will be emailed to you in about 10 to 20 days after your samples are received.

Based on your index result, you will then be able to use GrassrootsHealth’s omega-3 index calculator9 to determine the dosage you may require to raise your current level to your chosen target level.

Avoid the temptation to assume that your omega-3 index is sufficient just because you’re eating fish or taking a supplement. Many fish do not contain high omega-3 levels (you have to eat cold-water fatty fish to reap that benefit), and many fish oil supplements are synthetic with questionable efficacy.

As reported by GrassrootsHealth,10 of the first 135 participants in the D*action + Omega-3 home testing project, 85% had an omega-3 index below 8%, which is the lower threshold for sufficiency, putting them at increased risk for heart disease11 and other chronic diseases, as well as death from any cause.

As reported by GrassrootsHealth:12

“In studies using a measurement called the Omega-3 Index test, individuals with a low Omega-3 Index were shown to have a 10-fold higher risk of death compared to those with a high index … An Omega-3 Index between 8% and 12% was associated with lower risk for death from cardiovascular disease, versus an index less than 4%.”

Again, while many need a marine-based omega-3 supplement to get their level up, it’s also crucial to limit your intake of omega-6 fats from vegetable oils. This even includes some healthy oils such as virgin olive oil.

Aside from the fact that a majority of olive oils are fake, even the real McCoy can cause trouble when consumed in too-high amounts, as it’s loaded with omega-6 and therefore can skew your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.

Your body metabolizes omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs into eicosanoids, which are hormone-like substances. As a general rule, omega-3 eicosanoids are anti-inflammatory while omega-6 eicosanoids have proinflammatory effects.

Ideally, this ratio should be close to 1-to-1, but because people eat so little omega-3 and excessive amounts of omega-6, it’s not uncommon for this ratio to be closer to 1-to-25 of greater. When your consumption is this skewed, you may still have a hard time optimizing your omega-3 index, even when taking a supplement.

It’s important to realize that your body metabolizes omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) into eicosanoids, which are hormone-like substances. As a general rule, omega-3 eicosanoids are anti-inflammatory while omega-6 eicosanoids have proinflammatory effects.13

Part of the benefits of omega-3 fats is that they block the proinflammatory effects of omega-6 eicosanoids, but if your omega-6 intake is too great, you may still have high rates of inflammation. Omega-6 fats also:14

  • Create reactive species that damage DNA

  • Cause 17-beta-estradiol epoxidation, which in turn generates a carcinogenic compound

  • Enhance the genotoxic effects of other compounds

According to the 2017 U.S. Department of Agriculture report,15 “U.S. Trends in Food Availability,” consumption of healthy saturated animal fats such as butter, lard and beef tallow fell by 27% between 1970 and 2014, while consumption of harmful vegetable oils rose by 87%. Intake of salad and cooking oils specifically rose by 248%.

As noted in “New Study Tells Why Chicken Is Killing You and Saturated Fat Is Your Friend,” which features a podcast interview with Dr. Paul Saladino and Nina Teicholz, conventional chicken is also a hidden source of harmful omega-6 linoleic acid, due to the fact that they’re fed corn. So, your best bet is to eat the eggs, not the chicken.

Compelling evidence suggests processed vegetable oils, rich in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, are likely the primary culprit in our modern diet, contributing to the development of just about all chronic diseases. I believe they take a greater toll on human health than high fructose corn syrup even.

Not only have vegetable oils been linked to heart disease, gastrointestinal diseases such as irritable bowel disorder and inflammatory conditions such as arthritis, they’ve also been linked to cancer, especially neuroblastoma, breast, prostate, colon and lung cancer.16

In a November 8, 2019, Medium article,17 Maria Cross, a nutritionist with a master of science degree, discusses the science behind vegetable oils and what makes them carcinogenic. She explains:

“There are two classes of PUFA: omega-6 and omega-3. Although functionally distinct and non-interchangeable, these two classes are perpetually engaged in a metabolic balancing act, pushing and pulling as they compete for absorption in the body.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with omega-6 PUFAs: we need them … That’s why scientists believe that it is not omega-6 per se that is to blame; it’s the balance between the two groups of PUFA that is out of kilter and wreaking havoc on our bodies.

We evolved on, and are genetically adapted to, a diet that provides more or less equal amounts of omega-3 and omega-618 … Experimental data19 supports the theory that it is this skewed balance between the two PUFAs that influences the development of a tumor.”

Similarly, the 2002 paper20 “The Importance of the Ratio of Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acids” points out that:

“Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today’s Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects.”

In addition to promoting chronic disease by throwing your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio off kilter, vegetable oils also have more direct toxic effects. One of the reasons for this is because they degrade when heated, forming extremely toxic oxidation products such as cyclic aldehydes.21

Cyclic aldehydes cause oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL) associated with heart disease. They also crosslink tau protein and create neurofibrillary tangles, thereby contributing to the development of neurodegenerative diseases.

As explained by Dr. Cate Shanahan in her book, “Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food,”22 in order to understand how dietary fats affect your health you need to understand how fats oxidize.

The omega-6 PUFAs found in vegetable oils have highly perishable bonds that react with oxygen, creating a free radical cascade that turns normal fatty acids in your body into dangerous high-energy molecules that wreak havoc in a way similar to that of radiation.

What’s more, many of the vegetable oils produced today — especially corn and soy oil — are genetically engineered and a significant source of glyphosate exposure, and glyphosate has also been linked to gut damage and other health problems.

Shanahan’s book also expounds on the hazards of 4-hydroxynonenal (4HNE), which is the oxidized form of omega-6 vegetable oil and forms during the processing. 4HNE is highly toxic, especially to your gut bacteria, and consumption of 4HNE has been correlated with having an obesogenic balance of gut flora.

4HNE causes cytotoxicity and DNA damage, and instigates free radical cascades that damage the mitochondrial membrane. The omega-6 found in vegetable oils also damages the endothelium (the cells lining your blood vessels), allowing LDL and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles to penetrate into the subendothelium.

Importantly, these oils get integrated into your cell and mitochondrial membranes (just like healthy omega-3s), and once these membranes are impaired, it sets the stage for all sorts of health problems.

They also make cell membranes less fluid, which impacts hormone transporters in the cell membrane and slows your metabolic rate, and inhibit the removal of senescent cells — aged, damaged or crippled cells that have lost the ability to reproduce and produce inflammatory cytokines that rapidly accelerate disease and aging.

Vegetable oils also strip your liver of glutathione (which produces antioxidant enzymes), thereby lowering your antioxidant defenses,23 and inhibit delta-6 desaturase (delta-6), an enzyme involved in the conversion of short-chained omega-3s to longer chained omega-3s in your liver.24

Remember, omega-6 and omega-3 oils are polyunsaturated oils and highly susceptible to oxidation and becoming biologically damaged. This is why it is NOT as simple as merely adding omega-3 oils to your diet to improve your ratio. Merely increasing your omega-3 could actually make your health worse by increasing the oxidized fats.

The absolute key is to be assiduous in removing ALL vegetable oils. You simply should avoid them at all costs. Another source high in omega-6 oils is chicken meat. Chicken is very high in the omega-6 fat linoleic acid because they eat so many omega-6 rich grains.

One of the best ways you can get a handle on how many omega-6 oils you are eating is by using the incredible nutrient tracking app call Cronometer. If you use the app on your desktop, it is completely free. As long as you are accurately weighing your foods when you enter them, it will give you a fantastic estimate of how many omega-6 oils you are really eating.

This may be one of the most important and least expensive health strategies you can implement today.

Additionally, as noted in my recent interview with Dr. Chris Knobbe, omega-6-rich oils have a half-life of 600 to 680 days in your body. That means it can take quite a few years to empty your body stores of these damaging omega-6 fats. That said, eliminating them from your diet now will, over time, allow your body to rid itself of them, thus steadily improving your health.

In summary, as with vitamin D, optimizing your omega-3 index to a level of at least 8% may be a strategy that can help lower your risk of an adverse COVID-19 outcome, as omega-3 fats are important modulators of immune function25 and can help lower your risk of a cytokine storm.

Just remember that increasing your intake of omega-3 may not be sufficient. In all likelihood, you also need to limit your intake of vegetable oils, including corn-fed chickens. Together, these two strategies should allow you to achieve a healthy omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.